Part II extends the pro-market argument, examining governance safeguards and institutional design to prevent rent-seeking in climate policy. It stresses regulatory clarity, competition policy alignment, and safeguards against policy capture to ensure emissions-reduction efforts remain innovation-driven and economically efficient. 

This case examines the challenges multinationals face in pursuing B Corp certification, using Danone as an example. It highlights aligning global operations, governance, and stakeholder engagement with rigorous social and environmental standards, and raises the broader question: What is responsible influence on public policy for companies that have committed to sustainability? 

This teaching case by Rajat Panwar of Oregon State University, explores the tensions faced by companies such as Singapore’s Olam, in whether to continue to advocacy for farm subsidies that benefit the industry but undermine biodiversity and raise questions about their sustainability commitments. The case challenges students to consider how, even when companies are clear about their interests in nature, taking a public stance is politically sensitive. 

This brief analyzes legal, political, and reputational pressures facing corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives amid rising polarization and litigation risk. It outlines governance considerations, risk exposure, and communication strategies for companies navigating contested regulatory and political landscapes. 

Recognizing that climate-related risks are complicated, this brief disaggregates climate risks into three categories (planetary, economic, and financial) to then map those risks to which stakeholders are best positioned to address them. The article explains the importance of this disaggregation to facilitate intended outcomes and avoid unintended consequence. 

This briefing is the first in a series that applies effective corporate climate engagement to a particular sector - in this case, transportation. The brief provides five key facts board directors need to know about corporate climate policy engagement in relation to road transport; a snapshot of the current policy and corporate advocacy landscape for road transport and five steps board directors can take to support effective corporate climate policy engagement in the automotive and trucking industries.

Amid rising political backlash, most companies are recalibrating—not abandoning—their ESG and DEI agendas. This piece highlights a shift toward quieter, stakeholder-focused strategies rooted in authenticity, measurable impact, and alignment with business goals. It notes how terms like “ESG” are being replaced with less politicized language, and how scenario planning and coalition-building are helping leaders navigate polarized environments without losing credibility.

As a company’s engagement in social and political issues becomes increasingly fraught, this article lays out decision-making principles companies can use to determine whether and when to engage in social and political issues.

This academic article analyzes how political polarization affects corporate nonmarket strategies—such as lobbying, advocacy, and coalition-building—across different stages of the policy life cycle. It shows how polarization changes the risks and payoffs of engagement, complicating firms’ ability to influence policy without triggering backlash or strategic misalignment. 

This report analyzes how political risk—ranging from regulatory shifts and policy unpredictability to geopolitical tensions—affects corporate valuations, operating costs, supply chains, and long-term investment. It introduces a framework connecting political events to financial consequences, urging companies to integrate political-risk analytics into strategic planning, governance, and ESG-related disclosures to strengthen resilience. 

This report analyzes how political risk—ranging from regulatory shifts and policy unpredictability to geopolitical tensions—affects corporate valuations, operating costs, supply chains, and long-term investment. It introduces a framework connecting political events to financial consequences, urging companies to integrate political-risk analytics into strategic planning, governance, and ESG-related disclosures to strengthen resilience. 

This report examines the economics of action and inaction on climate, energy and the environment, and finds that failing to limit global warming to below 2°C could reduce cumulative global GDP by 15% to 34% by 2100. Conversely, the analysis suggested that investing 1% to 2% of global GDP in mitigation and adaptation efforts would significantly reduce these economic damages. They conclude that the net cost of inaction—climate change impacts minus the cost of action—is estimated at 11% to 27% of cumulative GDP, underscoring the economic imperative for proactive climate and energy strategies.